So says a new report on the future of the BBC, published by the Adam Smith Institute, known for its free-market views. The report, Global Player Or Subsidy Junkie?, argues that the BBC is far too inward looking. Its dependence on a compulsory tax means it spends too much energy defending itself with government. The BBC is the only state broadcaster in the world that not funded directly by the state. Instead, each UK household must pay an additional £143 ($227) a year on top of what it already pays in tax. David Graham, the report’s author, says that the BBC invests heavily in “opinion management” rather than being international in its outlook. It spends too much time worrying what politicians think rather than making shows you can export overseas. Scrapping the licence fee and replacing it with voluntary PBS-style subscription, would give the BBC “the global presence of a Hollywood studio, but with a wider range of output than a Hollywood studio,” says Graham.
Replacing the £3.5 billion annual licence fee with a voluntary subscription — topped up by government until 2015 to ensure BBC services don’t suffer for now – would also level the playing field for commercial rivals. Graham argues that the licence fee is an enforced payment system for services available elsewhere for free through advertising. Almost everything the BBC does is matched by the private sector, including classical music radio. The BBC’s massive footprint – combined with its not having to turn a profit – doesn’t leave much space for commercial rivals. Certain key services such as news and children’s programmes would be kept free.
What many people don’t realise is that the licence fee was always meant to be temporary. TV was an experiment introduced after the Second World War, which was the justification for this extra tax. While it’s hard not to sympathise with private broadcasters such as Sky, which complains about the massive leg-up the BBC has – James Murdoch regards the Corporation as one stop short of Bolshevism. He thinks any society that forces people to pay tax for an entertainment service must be mad — it’s instructive to remember that the average UK household pays £508 for BSkyB. Just compare that with the value for money you get forking out £148 for Auntie.


As a British viewer I used to think that the scrapping of a license fee-supported BBC was a heresy that would lead to the destruction of an effective UK production base of any quality or ambition. But if HBO-style funding means that it would begin programming for quality instead of trying to compete like-for-like with ad-supported commercial channels, I’m for it.
I look forward to the bleating of license-fee opponents faced with paying market rates, or getting nothing.
The BBC is just a great big gravy train ripping off UK viewers/listeners.We have no alternative than to pay £143 year
(and usually rising year on year) for an overblown broadcaster that because of our contributions is able to pay massive salaries to both staff & talent; and sends teams of hundreds to events like Glastonbury and funds ridiculous channels like BBC Alba (for Gaelic speakers in the UK..I ask you !!).
Give me my “Pick & Choose” Sky subsciption anytime.
Stop making out what a great deal it is.
Rant Over, have a good one !
How dare the BBC send production teams to a popular music event?!
If you think a hundred-strong crew covering the entirety of Glastonbury is too large, clearly you’ve never had to do it.
Unless you think all hundred of them stood around filming the same thing?
And I don’t see anything wrong with BBC Alba… just because you don’t speak the language, doesn’t mean the channel shouldn’t exist.
Hey John-Paul…
…..you pay for it then pal if it is such a great idea.
Any fool can spend someone elses money !…easiest thing in the whole world.
Aren’t you paying more than twice the licence fee for your choices though? And as well as Glastonbury, it also buys Radios1 to 6 – plus the World Service, which gives a decent broadcasting a voice abroad.
And the vast majority of BBC staff get paid far, far less than the going rate: they work long hours making programmes, and they put up with crummy treatment because many actually believe that broadcasting is a privilege.
I take your point about overpaid executives and presenters – but the presenters are now having to take paycuts. If you think the salaries paid to BBC bosses are fat, have a look at what the bosses at Sky pull down. Far less of your Sky subscription goes towards programme making over there; far more of it ends up with the fat cats that you and I disdain.
The BBC’s license status is important if only to provide a safe haven from the increasingly biased and hyperbolic news media which the Murdoch family so enjoy.
That said, I think it would be a good idea for them to be liberated from the game of political football which occurs every few months. I just hope such a move could sustain commercially unfashionable broadcasting such as indie music, niche documentaries etc.
Actually France has a similar system. in 2009, advertising has been limited to before 8.30pm on TV (and i’m not sure how it works for radio). In 2011, advertising should be totally banished.
License Fee means that BBC still can give quality programs. If some british people want no license fee than they have to surrender quality programs because the entire group will not be able to have the same kind of quality with private funding.
So it’s a question of whether you want the same thing and feel like it is yours or if you’re confortable with losing the best TV station that exists in the world right now.
This would change the mandate of the BBC away from serving British public interests to serving commercial ones exclusively. The BBC is one of the great channels in the world and it would be a shame to see it dismantled as a result of the opinions of a right-wing think tank. But hey, it’s happened before…
the license fee should not be scrapped. murdoch and his ilk have been trying to make this happen for years so they can further line their own overstuffed pockets. yes, there should be some house clearing in terms of overpaid executives there etc., but i shudder to think of how UK could end up with a populace as ill informed as the Fox news audience here. BBC is the only broadcaster with a mandate to inform, educate as well as entertain. all the commercial broadcasters do is ‘entertain’ and claw as much profit as possible. Society suffers when networks only offer junkfood.
its a great idea to have the BBC go commercial. the big challenge will be to get new people into that company who can function in such a dynamic. the BBc is full of bureaucrats and they will not function in a competitive environment BsykB will crush them. do they really have the stomach for this ?
The South African TV system is also similar. The South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) is also funded through TV licences.